The Environmental Protection Agency is recommending removing and disposing of the contaminated soil in part of the main plant area at the former Kerr-McGee site as it is cleaned and prepared for eventual reuse.
The agency presented the recommended plan, along with three other options for community members to consider, during a public meeting attended by roughly 20 citizens Wednesday at Genesis Dream Center.
With roughly 45% of the 90-acre site cleaned, EPA Remedial Project Manager Erik Spalvins said determining a plan for the remaining contaminated areas is the next step in completing the cleanup.
“These Superfund sites, for decades, they provide jobs for people, and they are a part of the community,” Spalvins told The Dispatch after the meeting. “And then when they are abandoned and walked away from, which is what happened here … (that leads) to this property being abandoned for a long period of time. So now we’re trying to get it back to where it can contribute to the community again.”
During the meeting, EPA officials explained potential options for cleaning up the northern part of the former main plant area, designated as OU-5, and discussed the completion and progression of remedial projects in other areas. Some attendees still left the meeting with concerns, unsure whether the site will be safe enough for future use at all.
Kerr-McGee operated a wood-treatment plant at the site from 1928 to 2003, and by that time the pollutant creosote, which is used to treat wood, had contaminated the site and surrounding areas. The Greenfield Environmental Multistate Trust has been responsible since 2015 for the $67 million clean up of the site and has been working with the EPA and Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality to conduct additional soil and groundwater samples in one area of the Kerr-McGee pineyard.
The Kerr-McGee site has been divided into five “operable units,” two of which, OU-1 and OU-2, have already been remedied. The three remaining operable units are at varying stages of the design and assessment process.
The EPA in 2023 released a combined proposal plan for cleanup at the main plant area, which is split between OU-5 and OU-3. The plan for OU-3, which makes up the southern side of the main plant area, was finalized and approved. The remedy includes building a barrier wall to isolate contaminated areas, planting trees and other plants to naturally break down contaminants and placing a soil cover to prevent exposure.
However, the public requested an alternative plan for cleaning up OU-5, sending the EPA back to the drawing board.
‘We’re not here to do nothing’
During Wednesday’s public meeting the EPA presented four plans for addressing the contamination at OU-5.
The first would be taking no remedial action at all in the northern area of the main plant, an option EPA opposes because it provides no protections to human health or the environment.
“We’re not here to do nothing,” Remedial Project Manager Ahmad Hassanein said Wednesday.
The three other plans for consideration include cleaning up the site, adding preventive measures, a review of the remedy every five years by the EPA and limiting any future use of the area without approval from EPA or MDEQ.
Hassanein said the second plan would include “institution controls,” or legal and administrative measures aimed at preventing the potential for exposure, like limiting any access to the site. It would also require future owners of the property to continue managing the soil in the area to prevent exposure to contaminants, he said.
“The soil management plan would allow for future land owners to either cover, remove or leave contaminants in place,” Hassanein said. “In addition to that, institution control will apply to restrict future use to industrial commercial uses without the state or EPA approval.”
The third plan, which is preferred by the EPA, includes removing and disposing of up to two feet of surface soil in OU-5. The contaminated soil that’s removed will either be disposed of in a solid waste landfill or under the engineered soil cover in OU-3. Clean soil would be imported to replace what is removed.
“We looked at long-term effectiveness, performance, (the third plan) was the best option, as it will remove contaminated soil permanently and limit long-term maintenance and management of residual contamination by future landowners,” Hassanein said.
The final option includes solidifying the contaminants in the soil with an agent similar to cement.
The second plan would cost about $600,000, the third would cost $7.1 million and the fourth would cost $5.1 million, Hassanein said, accounting for inflation. The EPA is also considering a sensitivity analysis, which would reduce costs by taking a lower volume of soil from the area.
Community concerns
After the EPA’s presentation, audience members questioned whether the soil removal process would successfully rid the area of contamination.
“Is that possible?” Woody Sanders asked. “I don’t really think it is because chemicals continue soaking down in.”
Spalvins said there’s currently an extraction trench and extraction wells at the site that pull creosote out of the ground.
Contamination at OU-3 was the deepest, leading to a plan that emphasized containment. However, Spalvins said contamination in OU-5 soil is much shallower.
“We have groundwater samples, and we have soil borings that go all the way to the clay, and we have also subsurface soil samples and surface soil samples,” Spalvins said.
Another resident of the area, Joe Johnson, asked what assurances residents have that the former pine yard area, designated as OU-1, is fully cleaned. The cleanup process for OU-1, which included removing contaminated soil, was completed in 2023.
Hassanein explained the EPA is responsible for returning to the site every five years to collect data and gather samples to ensure that the implemented remedy for each area of the plant are still protective. The last sample was taken in fall 2024, he said.
Spalvins said the pine yard area was treated with the same removal method recommended for OU-5, meaning the contaminated soil in the area was removed and disposed of. So because that soil was replaced with clean soil, there shouldn’t be any more activity happening at the site that could risk recontaminating the soil.
Other residents questioned why the process didn’t begin with the area of the former main plant, which had the highest levels of contamination.
“Our strategy is to ensure that we are meeting the immediate cleanup … needs for the exposed pathways to nearby residents through removal or remedial actions,” Hassanein said. “And because the site is complex, EPA tends to divide the site into different operable units as a strategy to go from simple to more complex.”
Public comment period
The EPA is soliciting feedback on the proposed plans to determine which option is most preferred by community members. The 30-day public comment period runs from Aug. 5 to Sept. 4.
Comments should be emailed to [email protected] or mailed to Ahmad Hassanein at U.S. EPA Region 4, Superfund Division, 61 S.W. Forsyth St., Atlanta, GA 30303 ahead of the deadline.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 41 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 41 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
